Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You need a super majority to overturn legislation. Meaning that rarely would legislation ever be overturned, even if it was not Constitutional. And since the right Controls 35 State Legislatures they would be able to overturn most decisions. As I said, toothless.
Is there any law in particular you would currently like to see overturned?
Well, we could just abandon the Constitution, altogether, and go back to the Articles of the Confederation.
That would make the next fifty years really interesting.
Well, we could just abandon the Constitution, altogether, and go back to the Articles of the Confederation.
That would make the next fifty years really interesting.
One of the proposed amendments was to restore the Constitution. Why do you think we should abandon it?
Is there any law in particular you would currently like to see overturned?
No, I want the Supreme Court to have the ability to do so is all. Doing this would basically mean that the majority could roll over the minority with little consequence. They could pass laws that don't pass any measure of Constitutionality to them, but be allowed to stand because seven Justices couldn't agree on that fact. Even if they could it could easily be overruled if enough states were in the hands of the parties that agreed with them. That's not mentioning the fact that unless one ideology rules the Supreme Court getting 7-2 decisions is not easy. On contentious cases it would become nearly impossible though.
No, I want the Supreme Court to have the ability to do so is all. Doing this would basically mean that the majority could roll over the minority with little consequence. They could pass laws that don't pass any measure of Constitutionality to them, but be allowed to stand because seven Justices couldn't agree on that fact. Even if they could it could easily be overruled if enough states were in the hands of the parties that agreed with them. That's not mentioning the fact that unless one ideology rules the Supreme Court getting 7-2 decisions is not easy. On contentious cases it would become nearly impossible though.
I understand that states could overrule a Supreme Court position; however, it would take a 2/3 majority. Also, the states that agree with the Supreme Court position could change their laws to reflect that decision.
Do you believe that states better represent the views of the constituents in that state than the Supreme Court? Surely, the states should be able to have freedom of choice if the majority of states disagree with a Supreme Court decision.
I'm against these proposed amendments. Basically, this allows states to ignore the Supreme Court and Federal law. No country will exist for long without some type of central authority and Texas is not a sovereign nation.
However, this isn't a serious proposal since these amendments read like something he wrote on a napkin. It's grandstanding.
The bottom line: it is about giving power and supremacy to the states ... "State's Rights!"
It is a backhanded way for some to achieve what the Confederacy could not.
If so many significant changes to the Constitution of the United States are necessary, then an argument can be made that the Constitution is deeply flawed and the Framers of the Constitution did not draft an intelligent document as a framework this republic.
Fortunately for us Americans, the likelihood of these amendments coming to fruition is 1,000 to 1.
I understand that states could overrule a Supreme Court position; however, it would take a 2/3 majority. Also, the states that agree with the Supreme Court position could change their laws to reflect that decision.
Do you believe that states better represent the views of the constituents in that state than the Supreme Court? Surely, the states should be able to have freedom of choice if the majority of states disagree with a Supreme Court decision.
Yes, but in this climate with Republicans holding 35 States they could easily do so. Even without that fact getting 7-2 decisions all the time would mean one ideology would have to rule nearly Supreme ( unintended pun ). Either they would have to control six seats, or in most cases would need all seven to overturn anything contentious. And no the States should not have that choice. We don't live in a direct Democracy, but a Democratic Republic. As such the minority is protected from being trampled over by the majority. The States have plenty of freedom, but don't need so much that they can do whatever they feel like.
Yes, but in this climate with Republicans holding 35 States they could easily do so. Even without that fact getting 7-2 decisions all the time would mean one ideology would have to rule nearly Supreme ( unintended pun ). Either they would have to control six seats, or in most cases would need all seven to overturn anything contentious. And no the States should not have that choice. We don't live in a direct Democracy, but a Democratic Republic. As such the minority is protected from being trampled over by the majority. The States have plenty of freedom, but don't need so much that they can do whatever they feel like.
I understand we live in a Democratic Republic, which insinuates to me that the elected officials in the US, and not the people directly, would be responsible for voting on key issues.
If a states' elected officials vote against a Supreme Court ruling, it was designed that the decision should reflect the sentiment of the people.
If the majority has no power, then why have a democracy at all? Why not just let the minority dictate every decision?
What type of government do you propose if the government is not ruled by the people?
While it is possible to have a Constitutional Convention, to have one I think would be something of a disaster for two main reasons.
First of all, one has to realize that by opening up the Pandora Box to try to get the changes you want to put in, others will probably be there trying to get the changes they want which may be the last things you want to see. A Constitutional Convention would probably oust the 2nd Amendment and who knows, might even result in saying the Federal Government is supreme in all matters. It could end up being a peaceful example of the Russian and Iranian Revolutions where one got rid of what was causing heartache at the time but ended up with something they really were not expecting.
I like it when Abbot is promoting Texas rights but I think this suggestion is a fools folly.
Secondly is that we have over two centuries of how to do things, how life is conducted, based on case law sourced of the Constitution as it now. What will happen to all of that if the document is changed? Say the 8th amendment is changed to permit the DP in cases of murder, rape, and maiming and that the Ex Post Facto clause is removed enabling it to be applied to those who committed their crimes before the Convention. There are certainly at least voices who feel the DP should be applied in that way. How could we conduct life after such a change and should we be tied up in so many court cases that would result when we should be doing other things?
Let's not upset this apple cart, okay?
^ this
And here's another thing, what makes conservatives think that the majority of delegates will be conservatives? Like you said, could end up with a convention dominated by liberals and end up kissing the Second Amendment goodbye.
I understand we live in a Democratic Republic, which insinuates to me that the elected officials in the US, and not the people directly, would be responsible for voting on key issues.
If a states' elected officials vote against a Supreme Court ruling, it was designed that the decision should reflect the sentiment of the people.
If the majority has no power, then why have a democracy at all? Why not just let the minority dictate every decision?
What type of government do you propose if the government is not ruled by the people?
Because the majority who put them into power don't necessarily agree with that sentiment. You might have a legislature that is pro gun restrictions, but the majority of their population isn't. Colorado is a good example of that. The legislatures votes on it because the National party agrees with it, or they want to pander to a solid portion of their electorate that won't vote if they don't take that line. Either way they aren't exactly following the will of the majority. The party still gets most of the say in everything else, but they don't get to erode other peoples rights just because they win elections.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
